P
PRmerger
Guest
What is your personal view re: apostolic succession?
- Status
J
JMM1957
Guest
Yes Randy, I actually just learned myself recently that to name a person Cephas was not ever known to have existed before Simon received it from Jesus, I found that to be extremely interesting and an important fact that seems to be overlooked among all the other evidence in relation to Peter.Cephas. It’s derived from the Aramaic word, “kepha” which means “rock”.
No one had ever been called “Cephas” prior to Jesus giving that name to Simon.
Paul wasn’t in Caesarea Philippi the day that Jesus spoke the words of Mt. 16:18-19, so it must have been strange to his ears the first time he heard someone refer to “Rocky” as the head of the Christian Church.
But Paul didn’t refuse to use Simon’s new name; he referred to Simon as “Cephas” just as Jesus had done.
Paul knew who Cephas was in the Church.
J
JMM1957
Guest
If you want to use that kind of reasoning about something so important that should be there but isn’t, then…I could say why is it that the Reformation isn’t mentioned specifically in the Bible as well? After all, Protestant’s look back at the Reformation period as world changing and hold it in such high regard, as the point in church history when the “church” was restored back to its Biblical roots after centuries of drifting away. Don’t mean to change the topic, and I won’t say anymore about it, but if I asked you for Biblical proof that the Reformation was an inevitable reality, could you provide it? I think not. It’s a two way street.
D
Della
Guest
Yes, the funny thing about Protestants rejecting Peter as the first pope in a succession of popes is that the whole Church accepted it until the Schism in the East a little over a 1000 years after Christ founded the Church, and in the West until the Reformation in the 1500’s. No one debated it before then, it was plainly accepted. History bears this out.
Arguing from Scripture is pointless because it ignores hundreds of years of that acceptance. So, why, did the East, and then later did some in the West reject the papacy? We all know why. No one who knows any history can claim he doesn’t. It was because certain factions, mostly for political reasons, no longer wanted to be under papal authority. Men decided they knew better than God–violating Christ’s clear intention that there should be one Church, founded on Peter and the Apostles.
S
sdtouchton
Guest
D
Della
Guest
Originally Posted by Della
Firstly, it was assumed. How many Catholic bishops in our own day discuss Petrine primacy? Almost none. Why? Because it’s an established fact, not an issue in debate.
Mystophilus:
Firstly, it was assumed. How many Catholic bishops in our own day discuss Petrine primacy? Almost none. Why? Because it’s an established fact, not an issue in debate.
My point was that just as bishops after St. Paul didn’t bother debating an accepted fact, neither did St. Paul. He had zero reason to do so.
P
pablope
Guest
Actually, there is…you have not seen it because you only see the protestant perspective:
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (Gal 2:11-14)
Protestants generally claim that this is proof that Paul does not see any authority in Peter. On the other hand, if you look at this from another perspective, you can actually see that Paul regarded Peter as an authority that is why he confronted Peter:
blog.adw.org/2010/10/what-st-paul-can-teach-us-about-respect-for-church-authority/
There is something refreshing about this understanding of authority. It understands that having authority does not mean one is above reproof…But here Paul stands face to face (κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην) with Peter and accuses him of a moral fault. Peter had taught rightly of the equality of the Gentiles but drew back from keeping company with them. We as Catholics teach of the infallibility of the pope but we do not teach that he is impeccable (sinless). Even those who teach rightly (as Peter did) sometimes struggle to fully live the truth they preach (believe me, I know)… Now Paul here is a little bolder than I would be but he also lived in a different culture than I. As we can see from the Gospels and other writings Jesus and the Apostles really “mixed it up” with others. The ancient Jewish setting was famous for frank and vivid discussion of issues that included a lot of hyperbole. Our own culture prefers a more gentle approach. Perhaps the modern rule is best stated: Clarity with Charity…So Paul demonstrates a sort of refreshing honesty with Peter here. He acknowledges Peter’s authority as we have seen but also respects Peter enough as a man to speak with him directly and clearly, to his face, and not behind his back.
And another view:catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3485
*This rebuke, says the anonymous author of Myth, shows that Peter could not have been Paul’s superior in any respect.29 Guettee says Paul “believed so little in any authority of Peter, that he withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” In his reprimanding Peter, Paul affirms that he is [Peter’s] equal."
Note first that the rebuke in itself does not deny Petrine authority. Catherine of Siena could rebuke the pope for his human failures without any thought of equating her ecclesial status with his. Moreover, we must ask what Paul actually did. He rebuked Peter for not adhering to the policy which God had established through Peter (Acts 10 again): The vehemence of Paul’s criticism underlines, rather than denies, Peter’s primacy: "You, of all people – you, the Rock!"30
*
P
pablope
Guest
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3485
But Eastern opponents of Petrine primacy still have Galatians 2:11-14 as a cudgel. Here was the situation. In Antioch Peter had been freely associating with Gentile Christians. On the scene came some hard-nosed Judaizers, part of James’s crowd. Even though the Church was officially open to Gentiles, those Judaizers would have criticized Peter had they seen him in fellowship with the Gentile Christians. To avoid the Judaizers’ criticism, Peter began avoiding public contact with the Gentile Christians. (Meyendorff argues that James had "priority over Peter who is even forced to ‘fear’ his [James’s] representatives.“28) Paul rebuked Peter, and rightly so.
This rebuke, says the anonymous author of Myth, shows that Peter could not have been Paul’s superior in any respect.29 Guettee says Paul “believed so little in any authority of Peter, that he withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” In his reprimanding Peter, Paul affirms that he is [Peter’s] equal.”
Note first that the rebuke in itself does not deny Petrine authority. Catherine of Siena could rebuke the pope for his human failures without any thought of equating her ecclesial status with his. Moreover, we must ask what Paul actually did. He rebuked Peter for not adhering to the policy which God had established through Peter (Acts 10 again): The vehemence of Paul’s criticism underlines, rather than denies, Peter’s primacy: "You, of all people – you, the Rock!"30
J
JMM1957
Guest
What would the Protestant’s say about Peter if they didn’t have Gal.2:11-14 and Matthew 16:21-23 to lean on? Did Jesus allow these incidents to be recorded in Scripture so that everyone would understand that Peter was not anything special? Or maybe it was to show us that everyone is a sinner and falls short of the glory of God. Peter and his successors could never have shepherded their flock on their own abilities, the promised Holy Spirit enabled them to do it. Do I need to point out the fact that Paul, even though a zealous Jew, prior to his conversion, did much more to hurt the church than Peter ever did. We know Paul became a pillar of the church and did more for spreading the Gospel than probably anyone else in history. How is it then, that you deny clear Biblical evidence that Jesus, the cornerstone, established the church on the “rock” of Peter?
D
dronald
Guest
Palope and yourself are getting it wrong.
The argument is that from Paul’s letters there is nothing to indicate that he thought anything special of Peter. Any argument that he did would be an argument from silence.
The ample amount of times Peter is mentioned (whether negatively or positively) Paul never once takes a moment to acknowledge that Peter is somehow the greatest Apostle. Instead Paul speaks of people like yourselves who make claims about “following Peter” when we all follow Christ.
There is not one tiny hint that Paul taught Peter’s supremacy.
There are arguments from Matthew and history; but not at all from Paul. Not one bit. I’m surprised at the straws being grasped to try and prove so.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Er, my personal view of which aspect of it?
Do I believe that various churches can trace their lineage of ordinations back to the Apostles? Yes, they have put quite a lot of research into this, and I am willing to take their word for it.
Do I believe that their being able to do so guarantees that their teaching is now correct? No, the one does not logically imply the other.
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Unfortunately, it’s the same logical problem. That we have no extant references to him doing so does not prove that he did not do so: it only proves that we have no extant references to it. That current absence could be caused by an absence then, or a loss between then and now. The leap from “we have none now” to “they never existed” is the logical flaw.
The idea of its being an accepted fact is its own problem, since the connection between Petrine primacy and the bishopric of Rome is one which developed over the centuries of the Early Church, and developed in significantly different fashions in West and East.
While I do not think that you are wrong about Paul here, since I do not see any evidence of a desire on his part to challenge Peter’s role as the leader of the Apostles, that claim can be pushed too far.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Neither: the term “pope” was not yet in use. From memory, it first shows up around AD 300, and so Paul’s not using it does not indicate anything. As for the structure of the church, that was also still under development, and the Western centralisation of authority in Rome was far from complete.
J
JMM1957
Guest
May I ask why it is so utterly important to you and others that Paul speaks to Peter’s role as a pope somewhere in his letters? As if Paul somehow has the final say in the matter. If Paul doesn’t acknowledge it, then it can’t possibly be true? In my opinion, this thread is as good as dead if people who believe as you do are going to ignore plentiful solid Biblical evidence in favor of Peter’s position, and instead continue to pursue what Paul may or may not have said about the matter. Talk about stubborness of heart.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
No one had ever been called that, or we now have no records of anyone having been called that? We have at least two records of “Rocky” (Πετρων) in Greek before this, and another from about the same time, which makes the conclusion that no one had ever used the Aramaic version a rather unsafe leap.
E
eddie_too
Guest
we all know anyone can make any assertion they like. assertions about how paul viewed peter’s role in the faith are completely speculative.
what is not speculative is the fact that the Jesus and His Church saw peter’s role as unique among the twelve. since paul considered himself a faithful apostle of Jesus it seems a little ludicrous to be discussing whether or not paul recognized peter’s primacy. Jesus and the Church recognized it. if paul did not, and there is no good reason to believe he did not, it would simply be a theological error, nothing more.
paul did not found a church. paul was a faithful and astoundingly brilliant theologian of the Church Jesus founded.
what is not speculative is the fact that the Jesus and His Church saw peter’s role as unique among the twelve. since paul considered himself a faithful apostle of Jesus it seems a little ludicrous to be discussing whether or not paul recognized peter’s primacy. Jesus and the Church recognized it. if paul did not, and there is no good reason to believe he did not, it would simply be a theological error, nothing more.
paul did not found a church. paul was a faithful and astoundingly brilliant theologian of the Church Jesus founded.
J
JMM1957
Guest
There is no positive confirmation of what you are saying. In my reading I did come across a statement which said there may have been one other use of the name Cephas around that time period, but there is no way to be absolutely sure obviously. You are free to believe what you want though. So what’s the point? We certainly don’t need Peter to be renamed a “never to be used before name” by Jesus to solidify our argument, its just interesting thats all.
J
JMM1957
Guest
Its just a centuries old tactic to discredit the role of Peter and his successors, that’s why its being brought up again, nothing more.
G
GiveTheTruth
Guest
Evangelicals and Catholics agree that Jesus and His apostles were Jewish and fully practiced all the sacramental requirements of Judaism and observed all of its customs, even the one in which Jesus was not an author of which we find at the beginning of Matthew 23:1-3 “Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore, whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works, for they say, and do not do.”
Nowhere is Sacred Scripture do we find the decreeing or the inaugurating of Moses’ chair, but Jesus respected the rabbinical tradition that developed over time.
That being said, we need not look no further than to Jesus’ statement to Peter “And I will give unto thee (singular to Peter) the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.”
Here Jesus is using kingdom language addressing Jews who understood exactly what he was talking about, not asking for clarification.
Judaic scholars of rabbinical customs of Jesus’ era would tell you and have stated that Jesus was clearly and unequivocally handing over authority to Peter by solely giving him the keys and made Peter head of the early church.
Funk and Wagnalls Jewish Encyclopedia’s definition of possessing the keys of the kingdom is as follows: "The power or right of deciding law in doubtful cases, or of interpreting, modifying or amplifying, and occasionally of abrogating (repeal or do away with) it as vested in the Rabbis as its teachers and expounders and too numerous to mention here.
Nowhere is Sacred Scripture do we find the decreeing or the inaugurating of Moses’ chair, but Jesus respected the rabbinical tradition that developed over time.
That being said, we need not look no further than to Jesus’ statement to Peter “And I will give unto thee (singular to Peter) the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.”
Here Jesus is using kingdom language addressing Jews who understood exactly what he was talking about, not asking for clarification.
Judaic scholars of rabbinical customs of Jesus’ era would tell you and have stated that Jesus was clearly and unequivocally handing over authority to Peter by solely giving him the keys and made Peter head of the early church.
Funk and Wagnalls Jewish Encyclopedia’s definition of possessing the keys of the kingdom is as follows: "The power or right of deciding law in doubtful cases, or of interpreting, modifying or amplifying, and occasionally of abrogating (repeal or do away with) it as vested in the Rabbis as its teachers and expounders and too numerous to mention here.
- Status